I. Multilateral-Continued Constitution of the International Rice Commis- 13 UST 2403; TIAS 5204 sion as amended at Saigon November 19, 1960 Agreement for establishment of the Indo-Pacific 13 UST 2511; TIAS 5218 Fisheries Council as amended at Karachi Janu ary 6-23, 1961 Agreement for facilitating the international cir- TIAS 6116 culation of visual and auditory materials of an educational, scientific and cultural character, done at Lake Success July 15, 1949. Convention on the settlement of investment dis- 17 UST 1270; TIAS 6090 putes between states and nationals of other states, done at Washington March 18, 1965. Optional protocol to the Vienna convention on dip- 500 UNTS 241 lomatic relations concerning the compulsory settlement of disputes, done at Vienna April 18, 1961. Senate advice and consent to ratification given September 14, 1965, not in force for the United States. APPENDIX I(A) The agreement of Paris, on reparation from Germany, on the estalishment of an inter-Allied reparation agency and on restitution of monetary gold, opened for signature at Paris January 14, 1946 (61 Stat. (3) 3157; TIAS 1655), was signed on behalf of the United States on that date. It is followed by a Resolution No. S on recourse to the International Court of Justice: "The Delegates of Albania, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia recommend that: "Subject to the provisions of Article 3 of Part I of the foregoing Agreement, the Signatory Governments agree to have recourse to the International Court of Justice for the solution of every conflict of law or competence arising out of the provisions of the foregoing Agreement which has not been submitted to the Parties concerned to amicable solution or arbitration." (Department of State Bulletin, January 27, 1946, p. 124.) All the other signatories to the Paris agreement had advised of their accession to this Resolution, as of July 22, 1948. APPENDIX I(B) With respect to the four Geneva conventions of August 12, 1949, for the protection of war victims, relating to: Condition of wounded and sick of the armed forces in the field (6 UST 3114; TIAS 3362) Condition of wounded, sick or shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea (6 UST 3217; TIAS 3363) Treatment of prisoners of war (6 UST 3316; TIAS 3364) Protection of civilian persons in time of war (6 UST 3516; TIAS 3365) *he following resolution was adopted on August 12, 1949, by the Conference of Geneva: "Resolution I "The Conference recommends that, in the case of a dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the present Conventions which cannot be settled by other means, the High Contracting Parties concerned endeavor to agree between themselves to refer such dispute to the International Court of Justice" S. Ex. D, E, F, and G (82d Cong., 1st sess.), p. 20). II. Bilateral A. Commercial Treaties with: 14 UST 1284; TIAS 5432 11 UST 2398; TIAS 4625 63 Stat. (2) 2255; TIAS 1965 12 UST 1703; TIAS 4890 Agreement with the Dominican Consular Convention with Korea Jan. 17, 1961 8 UST 329; TIAS 3780 TIAS 5638 14 UST 1637; TIAS 5469 4 In addition, the United States concluded economic cooperation and aid agreements with 17 countries in 1948 which contain provisions for referral of disputes to the International Court of Justice subject, however, to the self-judging domestic jurisdiction reservation of the United States. By note dated March 22, 1960 (acknowledged by the United States on March 31. 1960) the Dominican Republic gave notice of its intention to terminate the 1957 agreement (TIAS 3780), at the expiration of the ten-year period fixed by its terms: effective March 19, 1967. WHY ARE THE CONVENTIONS NECESSARY? Senator HICKENLOOPER. Are there any human rights referred to or established or promoted or advocated in any of these conventions, that are not already existent in the laws of the United States, Federal and State? Ambassador GOLDBERG. No, there are none. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Therefore, the adoption of these conventions or any of them would neither impose on the United States nor compel the United States to the adoption of any laws which we do not already have on the books. Ambassador GOLDBERG. That is correct, Senator Hickenlooper. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Then what is the use of having them? Ambassador GOLDBERG. For this good reason. Precisely for this reason, I would think: Our country, which expounds these doctrines, and which believes that they ought to be followed throughout the world if we are going to have a reasonable, peaceful world devoted to stability, advancement of human progress, should be a supporter and a signer, because our signature will have a great-our ratification will have a great impact-while a large number of countries have signed, the world community is still much larger and other countries have not signed-we would set a good example, and it also would give us a voice in seeing to it that some of these practices which adversely affect our interests, for example, are adhered to. Take in a purely materialistic sense that is not the dominating feature here forced labor, and it explains why the American labor movement was so strongly a supporter of the Forced Labor Convention. When countries are permitted to use forced labor to produce goods and services, that, of course, places our own country at a great competitive disadvantage. Senator HICKENLOOPER. But the industry representative voted against or abstained, did he not? Ambassador GOLDBERG. He abstained on the Convention as a whole. He did not abstain on particular provisions, which he supported. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Not against the principle, but because it was unclear. Was that the reason? Ambassador GOLDBERG. But the basis for the abstention was not that they did not abhor forced labor. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I understand. Ambassador GOLDBERG. And regard it to be morally wrong and materially wrong. They made that clear, our industry representative. The basis was that they were concerned at the time, as Secretary Dulles was concerned, as to whether we should have treaties in this general area. That was the basis of their abstention. THE TREATIES AND THE CONNALLY RESERVATION Senator HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Ambassador, speaking on behalf of our representation in the United Nations and the administration— and I take it you are speaking on behalf of the administration-would you have any objection to a reservation or an understanding on each of these treaties to the effect that nothing in the treaty has any effect one way or another on the Connally reservation? Ambassador GOLDBERG. As I have said, I do not think there is any import in this because it is clear from what the Senate has done on other occasions without stating any reservation that what we are dealing with is a specific convention. I do not think, Senator-and that is for the Senate to decide--I do not think it is generally a good policy to have to repeat what is obvious. Sometimes you forget to repeat it, and, for example, if this has not been done and I do not think it has been done in some of the other treaties then it casts a cloud as to whether those ratifications in any way minimized the amendment. Senator HICKENLOOPER. On the other side of that coin, we ratify treaties periodically which affirmatively take them out from under the Connally reservation. Ambassador GOLDBERG. Yes. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I mean they take the disputes under these treaties out from the application of the Connally reservation by saying each side agrees to submit the dispute to the Court. There is nothing in these treaties that says anything about that. Whether they circumvent the Connally amendment or not is a question, and I myself may think they do not-I am not so sure whether I do or not. But I myself see no reason why reservations specifically setting that out in connection with each of these treaties would be objectionable. My concern is whether by participating in these treaties we vest in the United Nations a control over what our conduct shall be in the event any one of the participants violates the treaties. Let us assume that certain participants violate the treaty. Can the United Nations step in, declare the imposition of sanctions or other penalties and drag us into conflict around the world? Ambassador GOLDBERG. Senator, I do not think there is any remote possibility of that, no. The answer to that I give you is "No." If we are faithful to our Constitution and laws as we must be, we have no problem in this area. Senator LAUSCHE. If we subscribe to these treaties, the only obligations that we will assume are those written in the treaties. No burdens will be imposed upon us except those which we have adopted by participation in these treaties and this act I repeat, does not at all vest in the United Nations the power in the future to declare what our conduct shall be with reference to other nations that might violate the documents. Ambassador GOLDBERG. Our obligations are set out in the treaty and the procedure for getting consideration of those documents is also set forth in the treaty itself. POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN Senator LAUSCHE. I take up the treaty on the political rights of women. It declares that: The parties hereby agree as hereinafter provided, women shall be entitled to vote in all elections on equal terms with men without any discrimination. That means that the parties to this treaty commit themselves to pass legislation that will grant those rights to women, if they already do not have such legislation. Ambassador GOLDBERG. We already have the constitutional amendment, and, therefore, this provision has already been covered by the article 19 amendment to our Constitution. Senator LAUSCHE. Each of the parties to this treaty commits itself to implement the provisions of the treaty so that the objectives there be made a reality within the states. Ambassador GOLDBERG. We have done so by our Constitution. Ambassador GOLDBERG. Oh, yes; the other parties which have not done so are obligated if they are faithful to their treaty obligations to do this. Senator LAUSCHE. Does the treaty provide for the imposition of penalties or sanctions in the event a subscribing nation does not comply? Ambassador GOLDBERG. The treaty does not. REFERENCE OF DISPUTES TO INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Senator LAUSCHE. In the event a nation fails to comply, what would be the remedial relief that could be had and where? Ambassador GOLDBERG. Article IX of the treaty provides that any dispute about the matter could be referred to the International Court of Justice for adjudication. That is the agency which could adjudicate the dispute. Senator CLARK. Would the Senator yield briefly? Senator LAUSCHE. Yes. Senator CLARK. However, the International Court has no enforcement powers, does it? Ambassador GOLDBERG. Yes. I was coming to that in a moment. I understood Senator Lausche's comment to be, Does any other agency other than what is provided in the treaty have enforcement powers? I think I understood that question correctly. Senator LAUSCHE. Yes. Ambassador GOLDBERG. The treaty itself contains a disputes clause and a reference to the International Court of Justice. Senator DODD. The Court always has the great enforcement power of moral persuasion. A mere declaration by that Court I think has great force and effect. Ambassador GOLDBERG. Yes, I agree with you. Senator LAUSCHE. We subscribe wholeheartedly to the rights of women to vote. We also declare repeatedly our adherence to the principle of open and free elections. Do you know whether or not there was any discussion under the treaty to procure open, free elections in different subscribing nations-that is, in, let us say, Russia? Ambassador GOLDBERG. There is a preamble to the treaty which, while it does not have operative effect, Senator, it does contain a provision which is drawn from our tradition, which says that recognizing that everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or indirectly, through freely chosen representatives, there is a provision in the treaty, in the preamble, which says it. Senator LAUSCHE. The purpose of putting the question is because to have genuine elections you must have two or more parties. If you have only one party and the voters are limited to it, you do not have elections. Ambassador GOLDBERG. I, of course, agree with that. SLAVERY CONVENTION Senator LAUSCHE. I go to another question. Article I of the Treaty on Slavery Convention is different in declaring what the nations commit themselves to do and I wonder why it differs from the others. In the other treaties they commit themselves absolutely to do certain things, but this article I says: Each of the state parties to this convention shall take all practicable and necessary legislative and other measures to bring about progressively and as soon as possible the complete abolition or abandonment of the following institutions of slavery. Why was this rather less vigorous language used in this treaty as compared to the language used in the other? Ambassador GOLDBERG. I think I was not present when this was negotiated, but reading the whole section there were practices which did prevail in the world, regretful practices-for example, if you look at (c), which does not take place in our country at all, and has not forI do not know that it ever took place, except during slavery-any institution or practice whereby a woman without the right to refuse is promised or given in marriage on payment of consideration in money |